Stories

The Russians Reject Gay Marriage

Angela MacLeod Irons
August 17, 2013
Russia continues to criminalize homosexuality. In a recent national referendum, it voted overwhelmingly to define marriage exclusively as a union between a man and a woman. This news isn’t new to Angela MacLeod Irons, who writes of how a toxic brew of historical influences have combined to create a culture of homophobia that is unique to Russia.
Stories

The Russians Reject Gay Marriage

Angela MacLeod Irons
August 17, 2013
Russia continues to criminalize homosexuality. In a recent national referendum, it voted overwhelmingly to define marriage exclusively as a union between a man and a woman. This news isn’t new to Angela MacLeod Irons, who writes of how a toxic brew of historical influences have combined to create a culture of homophobia that is unique to Russia.
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

When it comes to anti-gay laws, Russia’s new law against homosexual “propaganda” is far from the first. It is also far from the worst, as gays and lesbians in countries such as Nigeria, Yemen and Sudan risk flogging, stoning and execution. However, the world’s attention has landed on Russia due to the upcoming 2014 Olympic Games in Sochi, and many are asking how this new law came to be, as attitudes in many other countries around the world are becoming more accepting of the LGBTQ community.

What is most interesting about Russia’s recent events is that, to an outside observer, all signs suggest attitudes should be much more tolerant. Around the world, homophobia tends to increase along with higher religiosity of the population; however, Russia is largely secular, with only one third of Russians stating that religion is important in their daily life. Additionally, other contentious social issues, such as abortion, pre-marital sex and unwed mothers are well tolerated. It is therefore unexpected in this environment for widespread homophobia to occur. Although there are likely hundreds, or even thousands, of individual reasons for these attitudes, there are at least three ways that the country’s communist past contributed to its homophobic present.

Emporer Nicholas I enacted the first law against homosexuality in Russia in 1832. Although the stated penalty was exile to Siberia, the law was hardly ever used. In fact, homosexual relations among artists and the nobility were not uncommon, and even members of the royal family – most notably Great Prince Sergey Alexandrovich and Great Prince Konstantin Konstantinovich – were known to have homosexual lovers. It was not until the Bolshevik Revolution and the establishment of the Soviet Union in the early 1920s that attitudes began to change. Under the veil of communism, homosexual behaviour came to be seen as an activity undertaken by society’s elite with no place in the new Soviet state. The act of sodomy became specifically outlawed in 1934 with those convicted subjected to five to eight years in a prison colony. American researcher Dan Healey has attempted to collect data on the number of people convicted under this law, but found the records prior to the 1960s to be classified, fragmented, or missing entirely. However a total of 22,163 people were convicted between the years of 1961 and 1981. The number of annual convictions then began to fall until the law was abolished in 1993.

In addition to the criminalization of activities under the Stalinist government, the state of communism also affected the way homosexual individuals were viewed by academics and medical professionals. Cut off from the rest of the world, Russian scientists continued to believe that homosexuality was a temporary condition that could be cured with the right treatment, even as those in Western countries began to reach the conclusion that sexual orientation is a permanent state of being. Homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1974 but remained an official psychiatric illness in Russia until as late as 1999. Laurie Essig, sociology professor at Middlebury College and the author of Queer in Russia: A Story of Sex, Self and Other, reports that many young lesbian women continue to be committed to psychiatric hospitals against their will. This attitude continues to be reflected in the general Russian population. An April 2013 poll by the Levada Center polling agency showed the 35 percent of those polled continue to believe that homosexuality is a disease, and 43 percent believe it to be a bad habit. Only 12 percent considered homosexual orientation to be normal (Pew Research reports that 80 per cent of Canadians believe society should accept homosexuality).

Finally, even though the majority of Russians are largely secular in their personal beliefs, the Russian Orthodox Church continues to wield immense political power. Approximately 80 to 90 percent of Russians continue to self-identify as Orthodox Christians despite the fact that very few attend regular services. Rather than the Church being seen as the path to personal salvation, it is instead viewed as symbol of national identity. The Church also remains an ally of the Putin government. Although the post-communism period initially introduced new freedoms for gays and lesbians, the Church has becoming increasingly outspoken in its opposition to homosexuality. Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Church, has even gone so far as to declare legalization of same-sex marriage as a sign of the apocalypse.

These influences have combined to create a culture of homophobia that is unique to Russia, and presents a very challenging environment for outside advocates and activists. Much like Stalin’s Great Purge and the Moscow Trials of the 1930s, those in authority are using this issue to further their own cause and increase their power base. There has always been the concept of “us vs. them” among Russians, and LGBTQ individuals and their supporters have become a convenient “them” for which to focus attentions. It is going to take much more than a hit song by Lady Gaga or Macklemore to change attitudes. While it is among the most evil manifestations, Russia’s homophobia is just one symptom of its collectivist and tyrannous history. It acts as a reminder that tolerance does not require secularity so much as a free society where all individuals, regardless of their religion, political beliefs, gender identity or sexual orientation, are allowed to live their lives in peace without state interference.

~

Angela MacLeod Irons is an Alberta-based public policy analyst and researcher and is a current Masters Candidate at the School of Public Policy, University of Calgary.

Love C2C Journal? Here's how you can help us grow.

More for you

The Day After: How Ottawa’s Clarity Act Could Destroy the Federation It Was Meant to Protect

With Alberta headed for a vote on having a vote on independence, many Canadians may think the threat of separation has evaporated. Or that it’s a long way off. Or that, in any case, Ottawa’s Clarity Act will shut it down and protect the federation. But in the concluding instalment of their series (read Part I here and Part II here), George Koch and Jim Mason explode that delusion. The Act is more likely to increase the “Yes” vote which, they predict, will trigger more political wrangling, more bad faith and bitterness, possible civil unrest and even the province’s annexation by the U.S. The consequences, in other words, are dire no matter which side you’re on.

Too Clever by Half: Why Ottawa’s Clarity Act Helps Neither Side in Alberta’s Separation Debate

The House of Commons once had an effective law in front of it that laid out clear steps to assure that any provincial referendum on independence would be democratic and any negotiations after a “Yes” vote would be fair. But it wasn’t the current Clarity Act – it was a bill put forward by the Opposition Reform Party in 1996, and the Liberal government chose to ignore it. Instead, it passed its own legislation designed to crush support for any subsequent secession movement. In Part II of their series on what the Clarity Act means to today’s debate over Alberta’s future, George Koch and Jim Mason delve into the Act’s origin story and explain why it’s so blatantly stacked in favour of Ottawa – and how that could inflame separatist sentiment and undermine the federalist cause.

Canada’s Other Productivity Crisis: The Daily Irritants That Slow Us Down and Sap Our Spirit

Multi-factor verification. Customer surveys. SMS alerts. Endless online check-ins. Technology was supposed to free up our time for better things. Instead, it has created endless obstacles to getting anything done. Plus there’s the constant impact of government regulations and questionable safety measures that further rob us of our valuable time. Peter Shawn Taylor looks at the absurd and annoying ways that 21st-century life ties us up and grinds us down. While some examples seem faintly comical, taken together they comprise what Taylor argues is a micro-productivity crisis of national proportions that is no laughing matter.

More from this author

The Righteous Mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion

Without the luxury of reverting to evidence, statistics, or reason, much of political debate reverts to questions who feels more virtuous. However in this review Angela Macleod-Irons discovers an author who has applied reason even to that ephemeral question. Jonathan Haidt’s Righteous Mind argues that the statists among us are not responsible for their views, they simply lack some intrinsic moral tools.